LETTERS LETTERS (May 19, 2004)

Parks, recreation commissioner quits

Editor:

After much soul-searching over the past several months, I have come to the conclusion that the Menlo Park City Council majority is not interested in opinions that differ from their own, so I resigned my position on the Parks and Recreation Commission this morning, with the note attached.

I am increasingly discouraged by the apparent disdain of City Council members, including Mayor Lee Duboc, Mickie Winkler and Nicholas Jellins to hear any ideas that are not their own. For example, the time and effort to draft a new mission statement for the city seems to me a waste when the spirit of the existing one is quite similar to their proposed "change." This appears to be an exercise mainly to put their imprimateur on the books.

On the other hand, the Children's Center building is an issue that requires careful consideration which they are unwilling to do. They do not want to spend any time at all considering the relative cost and benefit to the community of the two options for the proposed Children's Center. As a parent member of the task force to review the options for the program, I saw the final tabulation that determined the recommendation to remodel.

Cost was the deciding factor, by a close margin, in the final decision of the task force to remodel rather than rebuild. Yet the recently published estimate for the remodel came in significantly higher than projected, which begs the question, "why won't the city put the building out to bid and compare?" What is the danger in a more informed decision?

My original interest in the commission stemmed from an interest in the children's programs. After she had solicited help from me and other parents to work for the passage of Measure T, Ms. Duboc even nominated me the first time I applied for the position. My voice is not one they want to hear and since that is the case I frankly have better things to do with my time.

This council campaigned on their willingness to listen to all sides of every issue. They have failed to demonstrate this time and again.

Nancy Travers

Hillview Drive, Menlo Park

A claim of biased reporting on Coastside petition

Editor:

Your reporter is doing the public a gross disservice with the badly misinformed article that claims opponents of the coastside annexation aim to "kill the coastside protection program."

I am stunned that a reasonably reputable paper would allow headlines to be dictated by one side of a controversial issue. Where is the objectivity? Is this reporter working with or for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District or POST? It would certainly appear so.

Even unseasoned petition drivers know it is impossible to attain the 50 percent of registered voters in 60 days in order to "kill" the annexation. The goal of opponents has always been and continues to be a quest for a real vote on an issue where the stakes are constantly fluctuating and the Environmental Impact Report was deceptive to say the least. The 1998 advisory vote, Measure F, was just that, an advisory vote "only" as advertised by FOCUS. The Almanac's biased reporting has been blatant throughout this annexation campaign but this time has gone over the line of rational reporting.

Deborah Ettinger
Alpine Road, La Honda

Editor's Note: The headline -- "Petition drive aims to kill open space district expansion" was written by an editor, not the reporter, and we think it's accurate. The petition specifically protests the annexation; it does not ask for a vote. The petition is labeled: "PROTEST OF REGISTERED VOTER." It reads, "I hereby protest against the proposal titled: Annexation of Coastal San Mateo County to the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (LAFCo File No. 03-10)." If 25 percent or more of the 16,077 voters sign the protest petitions, area residents get their chance to vote; but if 50 percent sign, it is dead without an election. The article that Ms. Ettinger protests clearly reports that the 1998 election was "advisory."

Time for council to start building bridges

Editor:

Last Tuesday, the Menlo Park City Council met to decide whether to place Residential Ordinance 926 on the ballot or whether to rescind it. In a move that belied this council majority's 2002 promise that they would be a "City Council with open ears," Mayor Lee Duboc announced that, given Nicholas Jellins' sudden indisposition, the vote would be split. Tellingly, her conclusion came before public comment. No evidence of an open mind there.

Can this council build a bridge and not further divide a city that is hurting from the mean-spiritedness and divisiveness that permeates public debate, from Washington to Menlo Park? Those who resort to personal attacks, calling us ignorant, dishonest, losers, no-growthers, crybabies and worse, are only disgracing themselves and are not advancing the process. When elected officials do that, when a mayor and a vice mayor stoop to calling people they have never met (people like me) liars, how can we trust that they possess the mettle and moral leadership to build any kind of consensus?

A campaign for or against Ordinance 926 will bring more bruising accusations, mud slinging, and suspicions of corruption: is that really the legacy the council wants? Let it instead reach for the higher ground and commit to putting the divisions to rest. Instead of plotting election strategies for winning the referendum, can't people of goodwill and diverse viewpoints use their collective brain power, energies, time and resources, and put their heads together to do better? Creative ideas and alternative suggestions abound.

I would like to see series of town meetings that would include staff and experts in various areas. No axes to grind, no political agendas, no grandstanding. Residents, neighborhood or professional groups, reporters, commissioners, and elected officials could submit questions, in advance or on the spot, and have their concerns answered by the panel experts. A transcript could even be published on the city's Web site and in the local papers for those unable to attend. Is it idealistic to hope that people would not attempt to corrupt the process through backroom shenanigans? And yet, Menlo Park deserves no less.

If council members make the public outreach transparent, public and non-partisan, they will take a huge step toward respect, credibility and community-building. Now is the time to prove that those values are on their agenda.

Catherine McMillan
San Mateo Drive, Menlo Park

Council erred in approving lease to church

Editor:

Last week, the Menlo Park City Council approved the application by Menlo Park Presbyterian Church for a meeting room and hardware store development on Santa Cruz Avenue.

Much like Humpty Dumpty, we can't remake the long lost Menlo Park Hardware store, especially with no access to the parking lot in the rear.

In a "30 pieces of silver"-like act, the church has pledged an "in lieu" payment of $16,000 to the city to make up for lost tax revenue and damage to the retail complex.

Why doesn't the church just schedule a funeral service, as this is the nail in the coffin of downtown Menlo Park?

Pat White
Santa Cruz Avenue, Menlo Park

Woodside council did right thing on trail

Editor:

A big thank you to the Woodside Town Council for understanding the importance of the comments by equestrians at the May 11 meeting.

Please accept our thanks for deciding, at a very late hour, not to abandon the north/south portion of an existing trail easement, to allow for the expansion of our trails network at a future date.

As was mentioned by a few and understood by many, the Town of Woodside has a unique trail system that should not be allowed to deteriorate by the stroke of a pen and pressure without proper input of the community. We thank the landowners for their understanding, and as they mentioned early in their presentation, it was the rural atmosphere of our town, in the midst of the fast-paced Bay Area, that brought them to Woodside in the first place.

Ursula Eisenhut
Woodside

What trumps freedom of speech?

Editor:

During World War II, caution was exercised and exemplified by the saying, "loose lips sink ships."

Even though our Constitution provides and protects the freedom of speech, are there times when caution and prudent judgment must be exercised by the media when airing deplorable and reprehensible acts?

Would Nick Berg be alive today had CBS not aired its 60 Minutes program, photographically detailing the detainee abuses that took place at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq?

Alan J. Zulberti
Portola Valley

E-mail a friend a link to this story.